Comparison of the Flow around Circular and Rectangular Emergent Cylinders with Subcritical and Supercritical Conditions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper presents flume experiments on flow characteristics over an emergent single and side-by-side cylinders, which is appropriate for the journal. The results are of interest to the design of structures in a coastal environment. However, the results and analysis are below the expectation. I believe that a major revision is need for the following concerns.
(1) The authors should clarify that the “comparison” in the title means the comparison of flow around circular and rectangular emergent cylinders or the comparison of that between the subcritical and supercritical conditions. However, neither is clearly illustrated in the following analysis and conclusion.
(2) Error analysis of the discharge and water depth measurements should be performed to the Equations (4), (5) and (6).
(3) The conclusions should be more well summarized and straightforward. For example, it is meaningless to claim that the height of the wall jet is reduced with the changes in h0/D ratios while the changes are not specified; the conclusions of comparisons should be clearly clarified.
Minor issues:
(1) The values of Froude number should be given for each case.
(2) Line 130, the sampling time of the cameras should be included. How many images were used to calculate the average water depth?
(3) It is suggested to be consistent with the description of the mentioned figure, such as, “Fig.(2a)” in line 173 and line 196, “Figure 2(a)” in line 177. Please check and revise.
(4) Line 178-179, “The Lbw increases with increasing water depth and cylinder geometry (D or W).” Is there any experimental data or literature to support this conclusion? If so, please list.
(5) Line 182, “Figure 2(b)” should be “Figure 2(c)”.
(6) Line 188-211, which is the same content with Line171-188, should be deleted.
(7) Line 240, there is no “Case 3” in the manuscript, according to the context, should be changed to “Case C4”.
(8) Line 270-272, “In Case C2 and Case C4, a small wall-jet-like bow wave was observed with the surface bow wave and height of the wall jet (hjet) was increased with an increase of SY spacing.” Is there any specific data to support this conclusion? And the explanation for “a small wall-jet-like bow wave was observed” in Case C2 and Case C4 should be provided.
(9) Why the rectangular cylinder was not considered in Section 3.4.1? It is suggested to discuss the rectangular cylinder case.
(10) It is advised to include the specific value of R2 in Figure 8(c), as form shown in Figure 8(b).
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments:
- What are the different initiatives that can be taken to strengthen coastal communities against a tsunami disaster?
- How can growing vegetation belts and constructing embankments help reduce the risk of a tsunami disaster?
- What hybrid alternatives can be implemented to strengthen coastal communities against a tsunami disaster?
- How does the flow phenomenon around a single emergent cylinder help strengthen coastal buildings against a tsunami disaster risk?
- What is a piloti-type column, and how does it aid in protecting coastal buildings against a tsunami disaster?
- What different Froude characteristics need to be considered while evaluating the behavior of the surface bow-wave, hydraulic jump detachment, and wall-jet-like bow-wave?
- How do the flow characteristics differ in a single emergent circular cylinder compared to a rectangular cylinder under different Froude characteristics?
- What is the observed length of hydraulic jump detachment for circular and rectangular cylinders in supercritical flow with a 1/200 bed slope?
- How does the wall-jet-like bow wave height vary for circular and rectangular cylinders in supercritical flow with a zero-bed slope?
- What are the empirical equations defined concerning the geometrical shape and arrangement of cylinders to
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors addressed the majority of the criticisms and corrections. Paper can be accepted.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have well addressed my comments; I suggest this manuscript can be accepted for publication in its present form.
